Evaluation of Technology Options by Lithography Simulation Andreas Erdmann Fraunhofer IISB, Erlangen, Germany Semicon Europe, Dresden, October 12, 2011
Outline Introduction: Resolution limits of optical and EUV lithography ArF immersion/double patterning: process interactions in double patterning EUV lithography: impact of multilayer mask defects Lithography beyond semiconductor manufacturing: source & mask optimization for mask aligners Conclusions and Outlook Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 2
Introduction: Resolution Limit ArF Immersion Lithography: Single Patterning aerial image resist footprint λ=193nm, NA=1.35, circular illum. σ=0.9 k 1 > 0.7: perfect imaging 0.25 < k 1 0.7: optical proximity effects: OPC/SMO required k 1 = 0.25: theoretical limit of half pitch (HP) for single exposure Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 3
Introduction: Resolution Limit ArF Immersion Lithography: Single & Double Patterning single patterning exposure double patterning exposure 1 exposure 2 k 1 0.25 impossible k 1 = 0.14 possible 20nm features requires extensive SMO, two masks and additional process steps manufacturable but (very) expensive Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 4
Introduction: Resolution Limit EUV Lithography: Single Patterning aerial image resist footprint λ=13.5nm, NA=0.32, circular illum. σ=0.7 k 1 > 0.75, 32nm: no OPC required k 1 > 0.45, 19nm: doable with standard OPC k 1 0.24, 17nm: requires more aggressive OPC/SMO Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 5
Outline Introduction: Resolution limits of optical and EUV lithography ArF immersion/double patterning: process interactions in double patterning EUV lithography: impact of multilayer mask defects Lithography beyond semiconductor manufacturing: source & mask optimization for mask aligners Conclusions and Outlook Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 6
ArF Immersion Lithography / Double Patterning Challenges Process Control Manufacturable Source & Mask Optimization Process Interactions Costs Support by Full Physical Lithography Simulation Parameter variation: source shape fidelity, laser bandwidth, aberrations, mask errors and mask topography induced phase/aberration effects, resist processing, enhancement of metrology Verification of less accurate OPC-like models: mask topography effects, full physical resist modeling, rigorous SMO for small areas Investigation of wafer topography effects, resist/material interactions Complementary to expensive, time consuming experiments Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 7
Process Interactions in Double Patterning Crossed Lines: Contact Formation Using Litho-Curing-Litho-Etch cure spin-on and lithography spin-on resist 21 resist 2 H. Nakamura et al. J. Micro/Nanolith.MEMS MOEMS, 2008, 7, 043001 mask: AttPSM with 45nm lines/spaces 90nm pitch stepper: ArF, NA=1.25, y-pol./te, dipole illumination: σ=0.76/0.89, opening angle 35 resist: DOW electronic materials, thickness 100nm wafer: Bilayer BARC on Si XG364G / XD424BA 43.98nm / 43.12nm resist 1 surface resist 2 surface SEM pictures with courtesy of Dow Electronic Materials Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 8
Process Interactions in Double Patterning Impact of incomplete Cure of Litho 1 Resist completely incompletely cured Curing is modeled by an increase of the activation energy of the cured resist EaF compared to that of the litho 2 resist Ea2 resist 1 after litho 1 resist 1 after litho 2 resist 2 after litho 2 Imperfect curing causes barrel shaped contact holes Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 9
Process Interactions in Double Patterning Impact of Wafer Topography during Litho 2 Exposure resist footprints CD variation along resist 2 line p litho 1: 45nm lines; variable pitch litho 2: 45nm lines; 90nm pitch Δn = 0.03 (difference between refractive indices of cured resist and litho 2 resist) Effect is linear in Δn Material specifications have to be defined for critical pitches Consider critical pitch in the design split! Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 10
Process Interactions in Double Patterning Acid Diffusion between Different resist Materials dla1 acid diffusion length in cured resist dla2 acid diffusion length in litho 2 resist dla1/2 =10/4 nm dla1/2 =10/12 nm dla1/2 =10/20 nm X: 43.4nm, Y: 46.3nm Acid depletion close to litho1 line due to diffusion from resist 2 to cured resist 1, thus becoming unavailable for deprotection reaction Resist interaction effects explain footing which was experimentally observed in some resist formulations SEM pictures with courtesy of Dow Electronic Materials Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 11
Outline Introduction: Resolution limits of optical and EUV lithography ArF immersion/double patterning: process interactions in double patterning EUV lithography: impact of multilayer mask defects Lithography beyond semiconductor manufacturing: source & mask optimization for mask aligners Conclusions and Outlook Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 12
EUV Lithography Challenges Support by Full Physical Lithography Simulation Source Power - * Mask Infrastructure & Defectivity Resist/Processing Costs Mask defect inspection, printability and repair simulations, mask topography induced phase/aberration effects, assist feature strategies Study of the impact of different blur effects: flare, secondary electron scattering, acid/quencher diffusion, mesoscopic simulations of LER Complementary to expensive, time consuming experiments * There are strong activities on EUV source modeling outside the standard lithography simulation community Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 13
Impact of Multilayer Mask Defects 40nm Dense Lines Printing without/with Defect mask image resist no defect λ=13.5nm, NA=0.25, circular illum. σ=0.5 calibrated resist model defect w top = 80nm h top = 2nm w bot = 50nm h bot = 50nm Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 14
Impact of Multilayer Mask Defects Description of Defects bump defect pit defect (2D) Gaussian deformation at top/bottom: h top/bot defect height w top/bot defect size (FWHM) introduced during mask fabrication shape depends on multilayer deposition process difficult to find and to repair Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 15
Impact of Multilayer Mask Defects Defect Images without absorber versus Defocus bump defect pit defect h top =2nm w top =75nm h bot =30nm w top =30nm h top =-2nm w top =100nm h bot =-2nm w top =100nm defects cause intensity loss in defect area asymmetric printing through focus bumps and pits print most severe in opposite focus directions Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 16
Impact of Multilayer Mask Defects Comparison with Experiment pit bump defocus SEMs from: R. Jockheere, IMEC Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 17
Impact of Multilayer Mask Defects Modeling of Present Repair Strategy Mask layout Aerial image Resist profile Mask: 40nm dense L/S Optics: NA=0.25, λ=13.6nm, σ=0.5 Resist: calibrated to IMEC data Defect: top 2/80nm, bottom: 10/10nm Good repair at best focus How about through-focus? Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 18
Outline Introduction: Resolution limits of optical and EUV lithography ArF immersion/double patterning: process interactions in double patterning EUV lithography: impact of multilayer mask defects Lithography beyond semiconductor manufacturing: source & mask optimization for mask aligners Conclusions and Outlook Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 19
Lithography beyond Semiconductur Manufacturing Challenges Diversity of Techniques Resolution and other Limitations of various techniques Diversity of applications, materials, and special Requirements Costs Support by Full Physical Lithography Simulation Comparison of projection and proximity printing, interference lithography, direct optical and e-beam write, near field methods, Source & mask optimization for mask aligners, exploration of Talbot imaging, various near field methods and optical nonlinearities (two-photon processes, stimulated/depleted polymerization) Modeling of thick resist effects, gray tone techniques, coupling between lithography and optical device simulation for waveguide structures and nanophotonics Complementary to expensive, time consuming experiments Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 20
Source & Mask Optimization for Mask Aligners Customized Illumination Geometry: SUSS Microoptics Exposure Optics wafer print simulation Aligner pictures and SEMs from: R. Völkel, SUSS MicroOptics Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 21
Conclusions and Outlook Full physical lithography simulation can be used to: Compare technology options Investigate impacts of device/process parameters Optimize existing and future processes Explore resolution limits of emerging new techniques Some future trends: Diversity of technology options, related physical/chemical effects and application specific process criteria requires more flexible and open simulation infrastructure Combination of simulation and metrology will enable new possibilities for process control Combination of predictive simulation and advanced optimization techniques helps to push the limits of micro- and nanopatterning techniques Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 22
Acknowledgements All members of the Fraunhofer IISB Lithography Simulation team Supporting Material and valuable discussions Pete Trefonas (DOW Electronic Materials), Jürgen Fuhrmann (Weierstrass Institute), Rik Jonckheere (IMEC), Tristan Bret (Zeiss SMS), Michael Hornung, Reinhard Völkel (Süss Microtec), Uli Hofmann, Nezi Ünal (GenIsys) Funding from European Commission (FP7), German BMBF, and Bavarian Research Foundation All simulations were performed with Dr.LiTHO: www.drlitho.com Semicon Europe, October 12, 2011 23